You are here

South Boston city councilor says his female constituents aren't SMILFs

New City Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown) can claim his first victory: Getting posters for the TV series "SMILF" removed from city bus shelters.

In a broadside against the show about the travails of a single Southie mom men would want to, you know, Flynn fumed yesterday:

In recent weeks, many of my constituents have relayed to me their disgust with Showtime’s TV Show “SMILF” and its depiction of the people of South Boston. The proud mothers I know from Southie, who work so hard for their families and our community, have told me they find it unwatchable as it is a degrading, crude and inaccurate portrayal of their life in the neighborhood. At the same time, I noticed advertisements for the show featured at bus shelters around the city. I’m tired of Hollywood making a profit off of these abysmal shows that in no way capture the real lives, character and contributions of the people of South Boston.

Flynn continues he reached out to city officials, who managed to rip those posters out so that the proud daughters of Southie are no longer besmirched by a show written by a woman from Brookline.

He should be but if you heard him speak when he was campaigning you knew he wasn't going to do anything about real issues. He provided no specifics or any plan for real issues...only hyperbole.

some more random thoughts:

- the producers should have filmed this in weymouth. no one is like that in south boston any more.
- nepotism and affirmative action - that's how eddie got his job. if it wasn't for his daddy he wouldnt be a city councilor. its the same privilege has george dumbya bush.
- go eagles.

Boston city officials said that the ads were already on their way out the door, prior to Flynn’s complaint.

The “SMILF” posters were scheduled to come down this week, in place of new material, according to a statement. The ads had been booked for four weeks, with their time on display ending two weeks ago. Since then, the ads have been used as filler.

The ads had been booked for four weeks, with their time on display ending two weeks ago.

(emphasis added)

So the ads were up for two weeks LONGER than they were supposed to be. Perhaps the City needs to look at their contract with the ad provider more closely. Also shoots a big hole in the claims from people who support the nonsense of "place advertising space in every nook and cranny we can shoehorn it into - as demonstrated by the MBTA's recent request to MassDOT to approve the installation of 16 - yes, that's 16 - additional digital display boards at station entrances throughout Downtown Boston - see

The city can't claim any additional payments from the advertiser if the ad stays up longer than contractually required. The advertiser paid for 4 weeks, they got 4 weeks. They aren't on the hook for any more than that, even if they might benefit from the extra ad time.

As for why the city didn't come remove them sooner - money. If they don't already have another ad lined up, they'd have to pay to send a crew out twice - once to take down the ad, and then again to put up the next one. That cuts into whatever small amount of money they actually make on the ads. And even if they wrote into the contract that the advertiser is to reimburse them for the cost of installing the ads, that probably wouldn't cover taking them down if there's nothing to replace them with. This is standard practice everywhere, and always has been, on everything from bus shelters to billboards.

You are correct though that this ad space isn't exactly in high demand. There are plenty of ads that stay up comically long, even in busy subway stations. There's still an ad I see every morning at Sullivan for a movie that came out in November and most likely isn't even in theaters anymore. That said though, I think there is significantly more demand for digital ad space rather than static.

a consistently reliable source of revenue. Also proving that claims made to the contrary by government to justify the continued and increasingly excessive proliferation of PUBLIC spaces with needless marketing messages for c^*p that people don't need is one of the biggest con jobs going.

life accurately? Ya musta been pissed when you realized that not every Will from Southie is a math genius, too. I'm afraid I have some awful news for you about living teddy bears.

"The proud mothers I know from Southie, who work so hard for their families and our community, have told me they find it unwatchable as it is a degrading, crude and inaccurate portrayal of their life in the neighborhood."

But that's exactly the point.
Anti-Trumpers are up in arms about his and his staffers treatment of women, Hollywood and the New York media are in turmoil since the exposure of systemic misogyny and Ed points out a disturbing local examples -- and he gets mocked!
The show's title is demeaning and degrading.
Even Frankie Shaw admits that.
I am glad he pointed it out.

I'm guessing that no one who is whining about it has seen the show, which sensitively addresses topics like single motherhood on poverty wages, addiction, and eating disorders. I'm guessing Southie has more than a few women with those issues.

But even if the neighborhood were totally immune to those issues, it's still childish and dumb to suggest that a fictional TV show has to accurately reflect your life, or it's an insult to you. Find something less trivial to get worked up about. Almost anything will be less trivial.